Allahabad High Court
Shilpu Sachan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 August, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 45 Reserved Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6019 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shilpu Sachan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjai Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri Sanjai Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Jadon, counsel for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR dated 18.6.2021 in respect of Crime No.258 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a brilliant student and almost in all the examinations of his career, he has topped. He submits that in the gang chart, two cases are said to have registered against him but both the cases are concocted and frivolous. He submits that if a student like petitioner is subjected to harassment, he will loose his brilliance. Learned counsel further submits that if FIR cannot be quashed, then by way of interim order, the arrest of the petitioner be stayed.
On the other hand, State counsel opposes the prayer for quashing and stay of arrest. He submits that charges against the petitioner are very serious, where it is alleged that he took the obscene photographs of the girls and made obscene videos and then uploaded the same on internet. It is argued that from a perusal of allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner.
We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. We find no substance in the argument of counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner is a brilliant student, FIR deserves to be quashed. A brilliant student does not have any right to commit crime and if the petitioner has committed the crime, he would be dealt with in accordance with law. Furthermore, the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
A Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2006) 56 ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others : AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.
Further the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani : (2017) 2 SCC 779 has disapproved an order restraining the Investigating Agencies arresting the accused where prayer of quashing the First Information Report has been refused.
The Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021) in its judgment dated 13th April, 2021 has in detail held that the Courts should not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the First Information Report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. Ordinarily, the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. The First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details regarding the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the Court should not go into merits of the allegations made in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner along with a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 25 August, 2021 RK